Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

What ever happened to god's miracles?

One thing I do not understand, and admit it was a huge part in my departure from christianity is where are all the signs and wonders that god is said to be capable of?

For me I actively fight against religion because the entire structure is based on this god that in the past is claimed to have been extremely active in messing around in humanities affairs. Basically getting his point across to us dullards, as in old testament stuff. Even active in more modern times.. with new testament miracles. But then ever since man has developed the ability to group information together.. Poof no sign of god…

Where are the blind healed?.... Where are the lame that walk?…. where are the hungry fed with just a couple fish….

Why is the world is the UN food agency worried about shortages. There should be at least a couple believers that could pass a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish around and feed them surely?

Show me one person that was completely blind, crippled or on a death bed with cancer that was healed. One truly verifiable miracle. Why would god feel the necessity’s to send his son down to die and dispatch his disciples into the world to and then just disapear?

In the bible in Mark V16:15-18 the bible states;

“He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues, they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

Seems mighty fishy that as soon as we would all be able to witness this awesome power of our said Lord he retracts his influence and expects everything to be based on faith….

I may not be an overly smart person, but he states the credentials of his followers, where are the signs that "will accompany those who believe?

I spent a number of years devotely following a chritsian faith… I never seen a miracle that did not have an obvious explanation. I never did see the blind healed. Hell never even met anyone that has or at least could prove they have.

So where is your god, what is he doing taking a holiday on Bazor?

Really if people don’t use there common sense and see religion for the fruit it doesn't bear, then i think they really do deserve to be slaves.

Renshia
-------------------------------------------------------------
I just can’t believe that people waste all this time being one thing for something else, they waste all this time and energy on developing some mythological construct as an excuse to live as a person should. What a pathetic waste of energy.

I'm curious - what "proof" would compel you to re-examine your beliefs..??

I'll throw this question out to anybody who cares to respond.

The IDF 'Merkava' Main Battle Tank is a real thing. I could provide evidence to you to support my claim through photos, physically showing the vehicle to you, providing technical schematics, overviewing combat history documents, showing financial records, doing interviews with tanks crews and technicians, etc.

Taken as a whole, this is a more than sufficient body of evidence that yes, the Merkava is an actual vehicle that is in actual use in the world.

This isn't rocket science. It's the basic stuff. Can you physically show me a miracle in progress, and walk me through a hypothesis of how the miracle works? Can we reproduce the miracle (in order for it to even have practical application, this is a must)? Do we have a comprehensive documented history of miracles that isn't largely contradictory? Do the miracles have simpler explanations than what is being alleged of them? Do we have good, solid, professional testimony regarding miracles?

There. That's a start, anyway. We'll talk more after you've come back with this stuff.

I really thought I asked a relatively simple question - what "proof" would compel you to reexamine your beliefs..??

Instead, you've chosen to dance around the question with a few comments about a tank and answering my one simple question with a half a dozen questions of your own..??!!

If your mind is so "closed", your views so rigid and your imagination is so limited that you can't think of one single "thing" that might give you reason to pause for a moment and (re)consider your position / beliefs / opinions, it would be an exercise in futility on my part to engage you in any further discussion.

Thanks for your response though.

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible".

I'm curious - what "proof" would compel you to re-examine your beliefs..??

I'll throw this question out to anybody who cares to respond.

The IDF 'Merkava' Main Battle Tank is a real thing. I could provide evidence to you to support my claim through photos, physically showing the vehicle to you, providing technical schematics, overviewing combat history documents, showing financial records, doing interviews with tanks crews and technicians, etc.

Taken as a whole, this is a more than sufficient body of evidence that yes, the Merkava is an actual vehicle that is in actual use in the world.

This isn't rocket science. It's the basic stuff. Can you physically show me a miracle in progress, and walk me through a hypothesis of how the miracle works? Can we reproduce the miracle (in order for it to even have practical application, this is a must)? Do we have a comprehensive documented history of miracles that isn't largely contradictory? Do the miracles have simpler explanations than what is being alleged of them? Do we have good, solid, professional testimony regarding miracles?

There. That's a start, anyway. We'll talk more after you've come back with this stuff.

I really thought I asked a relatively simple question - what "proof" would compel you to reexamine your beliefs..??

Instead, you've chosen to dance around the question with a few comments about a tank and answering my one simple question with a half a dozen questions of your own..??!!

If your mind is so "closed", your views so rigid and your imagination is so limited that you can't think of one single "thing" that might give you reason to pause for a moment and (re)consider your position / beliefs / opinions, it would be an exercise in futility on my part to engage you in any further discussion.

Thanks for your response though.

Did he answer your question too precisely?

Look again:

"Can you physically show me a miracle in progress, and walk me through a hypothesis of how the miracle works? Can we reproduce the miracle (in order for it to even have practical application, this is a must)? Do we have a comprehensive documented history of miracles that isn't largely contradictory? Do the miracles have simpler explanations than what is being alleged of them? Do we have good, solid, professional testimony regarding miracles?"

Find something that answers his questions. that kind of proof of a miracle would go a long way to changing his (and my) beliefs.

Personally, though, I always liked the Infidel Guy's answer - If God is omniscient then he knows what proof I would need. The fact that he hasn't at presentgiven that proof shows that he is either not omniscient or he wants to send me to hell to satisfy his jollies.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

I'm curious - what "proof" would compel you to re-examine your beliefs..??

I'll throw this question out to anybody who cares to respond.

The IDF 'Merkava' Main Battle Tank is a real thing. I could provide evidence to you to support my claim through photos, physically showing the vehicle to you, providing technical schematics, overviewing combat history documents, showing financial records, doing interviews with tanks crews and technicians, etc.

Taken as a whole, this is a more than sufficient body of evidence that yes, the Merkava is an actual vehicle that is in actual use in the world.

This isn't rocket science. It's the basic stuff. Can you physically show me a miracle in progress, and walk me through a hypothesis of how the miracle works? Can we reproduce the miracle (in order for it to even have practical application, this is a must)? Do we have a comprehensive documented history of miracles that isn't largely contradictory? Do the miracles have simpler explanations than what is being alleged of them? Do we have good, solid, professional testimony regarding miracles?

There. That's a start, anyway. We'll talk more after you've come back with this stuff.

I really thought I asked a relatively simple question - what "proof" would compel you to reexamine your beliefs..??

Instead, you've chosen to dance around the question with a few comments about a tank and answering my one simple question with a half a dozen questions of your own..??!!

If your mind is so "closed", your views so rigid and your imagination is so limited that you can't think of one single "thing" that might give you reason to pause for a moment and (re)consider your position / beliefs / opinions, it would be an exercise in futility on my part to engage you in any further discussion.

Thanks for your response though.

Did he answer your question too precisely?

Look again:

"Can you physically show me a miracle in progress, and walk me through a hypothesis of how the miracle works? Can we reproduce the miracle (in order for it to even have practical application, this is a must)? Do we have a comprehensive documented history of miracles that isn't largely contradictory? Do the miracles have simpler explanations than what is being alleged of them? Do we have good, solid, professional testimony regarding miracles?"

Find something that answers his questions. that kind of proof of a miracle would go a long way to changing his (and my) beliefs.

Personally, though, I always liked the Infidel Guy's answer - If God is omniscient then he knows what proof I would need. The fact that he hasn't at presentgiven that proof shows that he is either not omniscient or he wants to send me to hell to satisfy his jollies.

Thanks for your response, Jcgadfly.

Anybody else want to try and provide a straightforward answer to a relatively simple question..??

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible".

Actually I'm not. I've been trying to keep God from the conversation as much as possible because what I'm after is someone admitting to me that (a) miracles do exist with or without God or (b) there are no such things are miracles even if I can't explain how it happened (i.e. I choose to not call them miracles because they bring up the idea of the divine).

Again this is the reason I've chosen my replies in this nature on this thread; if no one here believes there are such things as miracles, with or without God, what was the point of the OP to begin with?

You're asking for either someone to admit that there are miracles (M-W says a miracle is: "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs" ) whether or not they believe in god, or that unexplained events still aren't miracles?

Okay: Unexplained events aren't miracles. Either we don't have the explanation for a "miraculous" event... yet, or it didn't happen. For example, we don't have a perfect understanding of the Big Bang - or what happened before the Big Bang - but even if we never know for sure it doesn't leave room for a deity to squeeze into a gap and claim credit. Another example is the "miraculous conception." I'd say medical science has a pretty good idea where babies come from (just in case you don't know...), and we know that abstinence from sexual contact is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy, but we don't have any proof beyond Mary's say-so that the conception didn't involve, say, Joseph's younger brother. Conclusion: It didn't happen.

Any questions?

"But still I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me!" ~Rudyard Kipling

Mazid the Raider says: I'd rather face the naked truth than to go "augh, dude, put some clothes on or something" and hand him some God robes, cause you and I know that the naked truth is pale, hairy, and has an outie
Entomophila says: Ew. AN outie

Yes, these are informations which can be disagreed with, but nobody can ever disagree with mystical experience, this is something, which just is But when it passes, the mind tries to explain it, I have met a man, who despite of his many mystical experiences considered them all as a trick of his brain, that's a sad story.

You are starting to sound like Paisley be careful. I certainly disagree with assuming mystical experiences are explained by God, a universal mind, pantheism or anything else related to group consciousness. If that's where you're going with your thoughts go see Paisley's 1000+ posting. Here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/13045

That Paisley guy is quite creepy, it's weird to see someone argue through 1000+ posts about something, which can't be argued. Either I don't know if something like God exists, or I've got experiences, which makes it very likely, but I can hardly argue with anyone, who has different experiences, unless I provide a proof. But this is an edge of human experience, and efficient proofs for it are on the edge of availability. I'm not like a Sathya Sai Baba to materialize stuff, so arguing about that leads to a dead-end. A looong, 1033 posts long dead-end.I am personally completely convinced. I tend to have "mystical experiences" or some kind of ESP quite often, like every day, some occurs in months, or weeks, and I've seen people to learn some of it by training as well and much more than me. It's no big deal, it belongs to human life, just like a big brain or dextrous hands, the difference is, that only a minority of people currently uses their higher potential. I've never seen an animal to perform a telekinesis, but a human, yes.So-called paranormal events are actually much more frequent than a sun eclipse, as I said, no big deal. Certainly not worth of such a long, senseless discussion, like Paisley started.

Quote:

Until otherwise proved as far as I'm concerned mystic experiences are a product of someone's fantasy centers in their own brain. Even if they have unexplained occurrences and even I have, that is not a reason to start building altars and praying to the sky gods.

That's OK, you use logics and facts you have. When you experience something officially unexplained often enough, you can see for yourself, if it's fantasy or not. For me, the outcome is, that most of the extraordinary events isn't a fantasy and can be explained just like a fact requires, though not by officially accepted knowledge. For me, it's a part of everyday reality, and obviously it's a rare everyday reality, but not unique.If it's a fantasy, then fantasy can't be restrained on one part of life, but must also interfere with, for example, our perception of traffic signs. Such people won't live long.You're right - the idea of worshipping something or someone is an archaism. An intelligent being (no matter if deity or not) wouldn't want a praise from anyone but a peer or a superior. Exploration of unusual experiences and events isn't a worshipping.

I'm not sure why you want to resort to violence? Have all your arguments failed and you feel killing is the answer?

That's a wordplay. It's said to be the most intelligent kind of humour, and also the dumbest. See the definition of being "stoned". Yeah, I feel like I had to be a church sign slogan designer in my previous life.

I am personally completely convinced. I tend to have "mystical experiences" or some kind of ESP quite often, like every day, some occurs in months, or weeks, and I've seen people to learn some of it by training as well and much more than me. It's no big deal, it belongs to human life, just like a big brain or dextrous hands, the difference is, that only a minority of people currently uses their higher potential. I've never seen an animal to perform a telekinesis, but a human, yes.So-called paranormal events are actually much more frequent than a sun eclipse, as I said, no big deal. Certainly not worth of such a long, senseless discussion, like Paisley started.

When you experience something officially unexplained often enough, you can see for yourself, if it's fantasy or not. For me, the outcome is, that most of the extraordinary events isn't a fantasy and can be explained just like a fact requires, though not by officially accepted knowledge. For me, it's a part of everyday reality, and obviously it's a rare everyday reality, but not unique.

Did you ever consider the THC was causing your mystical experiences and none of it was real, just a product of mind-altering? Since you say this happens everyday, does that mean you smoke everyday? Does your THC have some extra kick to it from being laced?

I'm not sure why you want to resort to violence? Have all your arguments failed and you feel killing is the answer?

That's a wordplay. It's said to be the most intelligent kind of humour, and also the dumbest.

I know what stoned is, I was being satirical. I probably was stoned 30 years before you were born. During the Viet Nam war I got involved in an anti-war pro-drug protest mostly in pursuit of a girl I had met. So we all ended up at the state capital smoking joints and yelling Hell No we won't go, Make Love, Not War, basically what I was trying to do with the girl. So the wisdom of the police was to wash us down with fire houses. This was in February in Denver so it pretty well ended the protest.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.

Anybody else want to try and provide a straightforward answer to a relatively simple question..??

*Sigh*

You're a fucking idiot.

Quote:

"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

Did you ever consider the THC was causing your mystical experiences and none of it was real, just a product of mind-altering? Since you say this happens everyday, does that mean you smoke everyday? Does your THC have some extra kick to it from being laced?

I had the "mystical" or better said, "paranormal" experiences since I was about 4 years old, I even thought that it's normal. When I saw a telekinesis about in that age, it surprised me a lot. (pleasantly, I wasn't scared) Also, nobody had beaten out that memory from my head, my parents are lifetime practitioners of some new age-related arts and they really believed me, when I told them about it.Yeah, I had a few puffs of smoke some years ago, but that made no significant difference, just made me more sensitive, much more. My ESP was just less easy to control when being stoned. Yeah, it was interesting and adventurous, but very uncomfortable. Usually my touch-related ESP (known as psi-sphere technique, quite common) feels like touching a soft veils, blobs, tentacles, (or whatever shape I make) levitating, swirling and flowing around me (obeying my thought commands), but THC altered my perception, so it was hard as steel, sharp and it felt like it would grind me. Of course it didn't, but it was very annoying. This is why I don't smoke pot, I already remember what it feels like and unfortunately, the feeling good and laughing others talks tabout, doesn' work on me. Besides that, psi-sphere is well known thing among healers, psi-fans, and so on, it is nothing unique, and I don't claim to have any unique skills, I know about other people who are much better at it.

This thread has been diverted miles from where it started and the whole point of the OP. The question was why are there not miracles being performed as in the last few verses of Mark 16. Your divergence into calling everything a miracle had nothing at all to do with the original OP. Mark 16 says basically they can wave a magic wand and do things that are normally not possible in our space-time reality. You have decided to consider everything to be a miracle. See the problem sir?

Yes the thread went way off but I had a good reason to. If no one accepts the concept of a miracle to be valid, what is the point of arguing what hasn't been seen to begin with? This is my primary problem with this argument. What is the point of arguing about why a miracle has not been seen if you do not believe there are miracles to begin with. Since you do not, the defending of such a point would be moot since no explanation would be acceptable.

Also, you obviously did not understand my position since I hardly consider "everything" to be a miracle. I will not go into that again since it has been beaten to death already IMO.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire

This thread has been diverted miles from where it started and the whole point of the OP. The question was why are there not miracles being performed as in the last few verses of Mark 16. Your divergence into calling everything a miracle had nothing at all to do with the original OP. Mark 16 says basically they can wave a magic wand and do things that are normally not possible in our space-time reality. You have decided to consider everything to be a miracle. See the problem sir?

Yes the thread went way off but I had a good reason to. If no one accepts the concept of a miracle to be valid, what is the point of arguing what hasn't been seen to begin with? This is my primary problem with this argument. What is the point of arguing about why a miracle has not been seen if you do not believe there are miracles to begin with. Since you do not, the defending of such a point would be moot since no explanation would be acceptable.

Also, you obviously did not understand my position since I hardly consider "everything" to be a miracle. I will not go into that again since it has been beaten to death already IMO.

You hardly consider "everything" to be a miracle but you claim everything (at some point) can be attributed to an act of God, which is how you define a miracle. But you hardly consider "everything" to be a miracle, etc. ad infinitum/nauseum

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

You have argued with a perception based view that all occurences we can regard as wonderous are miraculous. That's fine. However, the original question was what has happened to biblical miracles which I and many others take to be supernatural occurences.

Actually, I was not arguing that everything is a miracle and I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "all occurrences."

MichaelMcF wrote:

So here's my question to you and the other theists. This is a pilgrim child of privilege who has his eyes open to the suffering of an oppressed people. Where is his staff of power? Where are the rivers turning to blood? Why won't God allow him to rain hail and fire down on Pharoh... I mean, al-Bashir?

I'm not exactly sure what your point here is. You are asking me (and other theists) to tell you why a God you do not believe in is not doing something when I (and other Christians at least) will tell you that it is our belief from the bible that God does things to his will not ours and since "salvation situations" no longer are needing of God's intervention because Jesus took care of it all, the need for "salvation miracles" is no longer needed with faith in Jesus. Did I understand that correctly? Did I just answer you?

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire

You hardly consider "everything" to be a miracle but you claim everything (at some point) can be attributed to an act of God, which is how you define a miracle. But you hardly consider "everything" to be a miracle, etc. ad infinitum/nauseum

Two different questions, two different answers. I'm sorry if you don't see the distinction between the two.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire

You have argued with a perception based view that all occurences we can regard as wonderous are miraculous. That's fine. However, the original question was what has happened to biblical miracles which I and many others take to be supernatural occurences.

Actually, I was not arguing that everything is a miracle and I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "all occurrences."

MichaelMcF wrote:

So here's my question to you and the other theists. This is a pilgrim child of privilege who has his eyes open to the suffering of an oppressed people. Where is his staff of power? Where are the rivers turning to blood? Why won't God allow him to rain hail and fire down on Pharoh... I mean, al-Bashir?

I'm not exactly sure what your point here is. You are asking me (and other theists) to tell you why a God you do not believe in is not doing something when I (and other Christians at least) will tell you that it is our belief from the bible that God does things to his will not ours and since "salvation situations" no longer are needing of God's intervention because Jesus took care of it all, the need for "salvation miracles" is no longer needed with faith in Jesus. Did I understand that correctly? Did I just answer you?

Ho ho ho, good sir. What clever reasoning and astute logic is at your fingertips.

Jesus. Of course.

Quote:

"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

Ho ho ho, good sir. What clever reasoning and astute logic is at your fingertips.

Jesus. Of course.

Hey, they question was about a theology point of view. That's the answer, even if you do not believe in the theology behind it.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire

You hardly consider "everything" to be a miracle but you claim everything (at some point) can be attributed to an act of God, which is how you define a miracle. But you hardly consider "everything" to be a miracle, etc. ad infinitum/nauseum

Two different questions, two different answers. I'm sorry if you don't see the distinction between the two.

Or they could just be your words contradicting themselves. Do you vary the basic terms you operate under every time you're asked a question? If you do, no problem. You have a lot in common with the writers of the Bible.

Do you think "I'll use definition X if I'm asked question A and definition Y if I'm asked question B...Oh crap! He asked a question I don't have a pat answer to! Quick, make something up!"

Not sure what I'm missing here.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Also, you obviously did not understand my position since I hardly consider "everything" to be a miracle. I will not go into that again since it has been beaten to death already IMO.

Actually I did get what you meant I generalized it to everything as you seemed to attribute all to God anyway.

Perhaps if you answer the OP direct it would clear things up for all of us.

I said miracles do not occur as in Mark 16 because its fabricated and probably never happened.

When I was a Christian I would have answered it as only God knows. Or I would have used the out from the parable Jesus told of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. Here he says they won't believe even if one returns from the dead. They have Moses and the prophets they need no more. Or I would cite Matthew 12:38-40 that no sign would be given except that was given to Jonah. Or in Matthew 16:4 which says the same. Or several others I can't think of offhand. I'm not the theist here you are. I could construct a better argument why God chooses not to reveal miracles today than you have. And I know how to deconstruct every one as well.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.

Actually I did get what you meant I generalized it to everything as you seemed to attribute all to God anyway.

Perhaps if you answer the OP direct it would clear things up for all of us.

I said miracles do not occur as in Mark 16 because its fabricated and probably never happened.

When I was a Christian I would have answered it as only God knows. Or I would have used the out from the parable Jesus told of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. Here he says they won't believe even if one returns from the dead. They have Moses and the prophets they need no more. Or I would cite Matthew 12:38-40 that no sign would be given except that was given to Jonah. Or in Matthew 16:4 which says the same. Or several others I can't think of offhand. I'm not the theist here you are. I could construct a better argument why God chooses not to reveal miracles today than you have. And I know how to deconstruct every one as well.

Dear pjts one thing I am learning from spending time on these forums is that Christians ( and other theists ) fear being backed into a corner, hence the constant changing of terms and definitions. I find it to be quite a waste of time and am beginning to experience burn out from all the double-talk.

I imagine myself giving them a hard slap across the face and screaming "Just answer the damn question you idiot ! "

I am also a former Christian. I understood the question from the OP perfectly and would have answered as you. It's not a trick question for crying out loud.

Wasn't it Jesus who said ? "Sure, morality is nice but this is business."

Dear pjts one thing I am learning from spending time on these forums is that Christians ( and other theists ) fear being backed into a corner, hence the constant changing of terms and definitions. I find it to be quite a waste of time and am beginning to experience burn out from all the double-talk.

I imagine myself giving them a hard slap across the face and screaming "Just answer the damn question you idiot ! "

I am an atheist who was also a Christian at one time. I understood the question from the OP perfectly and would have answered as you. It's not a trick question for crying out loud.

Dear PDW,

I know what you mean it's interesting how they avoid directly answering at times. The question avoidance also may be related to fear that a micro-second of doubt might damn them to Hell. It can be exasperating saying the same thing over and over, but as IAGAY says sometimes I just do it for all those that watch and never comment.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.

Actually I did get what you meant I generalized it to everything as you seemed to attribute all to God anyway.

Perhaps if you answer the OP direct it would clear things up for all of us.

I did this (post 74 and again in 78) yet it was either glossed over or dismissed either way (like in 84).

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I said miracles do not occur as in Mark 16 because its fabricated and probably never happened.

Yes, I've read on some sites where there is debate over whether the verses should be there or not. My personal opinion on the verses is they do not alter or contradict the subsequent time line in Acts and actually add some support to Acts.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire

Actually I did get what you meant I generalized it to everything as you seemed to attribute all to God anyway.

Perhaps if you answer the OP direct it would clear things up for all of us.

I did this (post 74 and again in 78) yet it was either glossed over or dismissed either way (like in 84).

OK, here's your comments from post 74:

razorphreak wrote:

Ah, so context means nothing to you? How exactly should I expect to hold a discussion when no matter the explanation, it's always with the response of "how ridiculous."

Yes and if you continue to read in Acts, they received them. At that time, it was needed. I fail to see, since we have record of them, how they were continue to be needed today.

And before your retort, remember this thread is about what the bible states, not about your opinions of the bible itself.

My friend, if they did indeed believe, then the ENTIRE New Testament would not have been written because Israel's faith would not have required Jesus.

That being said, a "miracle" still holds the definition of "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs." Things that end up being explained via science are not miracles nor were they ever. Human flight, space travel, the fact that we went from walking to horse to automobiles, are not miracles, they are simply humanity using the miracle of knowledge and the miracle of having the ability to learn. Science has never explained how it is that our brain works. Yet at no time does it enter your mind that having the ability to think is a miracle from God. From from anything to be called "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs," right?

And here's your comments from #78:

razorphreak wrote:

To your first question, yes. Remember that the reason that Jesus was on Earth was for more than to perform miracles. Since that isn't what this thread was addressing, I won't go into detail as to why Jesus came to Earth. And since he was on Earth, it would be against the very nature of God to not help humans. Hence, miracles.

As to your second question, think for a second as to why we are even having this very discussion. The Jews at that time were not meant to accept Jesus so even if he simply said it, they would not believe. As it is, he DID address the OT many times to the Jews but still they did not believe.

So where in these posts did you answer the OP?

Is this what you mean? I see you reference Acts and make the claim miracles were needed then and you go on to say that you fail to see why they would be still be needed today since there is a record. So you think that since a record exists that is a basis to discredit your Holy Bible version of believers being able to perform miracles? If so why be selective, maybe the whole thing should be discredited. If one part is in your opinion not true from your interpretation, why not all of it?

As the question pertains only to believers performing miracles not God, I don't see anywhere else you addressed it. Did I miss something?

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.

Actually, I was not arguing that everything is a miracle and I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "all occurrences."

My apologies, I was generalising your position slightly. Renshia had originally asked about Biblical miracles - drinking poison etc. - and you had suggested in earlier posts that the ability of EMTs and others to save lives etc. was 'miraculous' in your eyes. By mentioning "all occurences" I was merely suggesting that you had a broader definition of what a miracle is than many others on this board. (My definition being an event which could not have occured by natural means)

razorphreak wrote:

I'm not exactly sure what your point here is. You are asking me (and other theists) to tell you why a God you do not believe in is not doing something when I (and other Christians at least) will tell you that it is our belief from the bible that God does things to his will not ours and since "salvation situations" no longer are needing of God's intervention because Jesus took care of it all, the need for "salvation miracles" is no longer needed with faith in Jesus. Did I understand that correctly? Did I just answer you?

At the risk of being pedantic... I was asking why the God you believe in is not doing something. The God I don't belive in isn't doing anything because he doesn't exist . But you've answered my question to a certain extent. I was asking why we dont' see miracles like those performed by Moses. You're suggesting that the sacrifice of Christ was enough to remove the need for these "salvation miracles" because it is through faith in his sacrifice that we will be saved. Correct?

Allow me to add a caveat to my original question then, as I feel using a real-life Moses analogy may have been too specific in a 'salvation' sense. What about other miracles? Pillars of Fire? People talking to God through burning bushes? People being turned into pillars of salt because they dared to look upon God's work? Does Christ's death and ressurection remove the need for all these kinds of acts? I only ask because I was baptised and raised a roman catholic and it is my understanding that in dying Christ was supposed to accept the cost and burden of man's original sin, thus paying the price that would allow us to enter heaven again. Christ's sacrifice offered us the salvation of heaven if we had faith in him and his ressurection. Am I mistaken? I'm not as knowledgable of the bible as others on here so please correct me if I'm wrong.

So why does faith in Jesus, which has granted spiritual salvation, remove the need for any "supernatural" assistance in times of physical hardship?

If you want an example - there are people of faith working towards resolving the Darfur situation. Many would say that "The Lord" is working through them. They're not just praying and hoping. These people are actively doing everything they can to help. They believe that faith in Jesus and acting as he would will help that troubled part of the world. But it hasn't helped in 4 years. Are the people of Darfur undeserving of a miracle? How has Christ's death helped them? Why does Christ's death prevent God freeing them from their suffering as he did the Jews in Egypt?

M

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss

Mixing fiction with wisdom gets people freaked , the bible is an ancient "Twilight Zone" script .... Jesus Christ vs Rod Serling ??? , ummm , who said I need pick one over the other nay , all is ONE ....

Is this what you mean? I see you reference Acts and make the claim miracles were needed then and you go on to say that you fail to see why they would be still be needed today since there is a record. So you think that since a record exists that is a basis to discredit your Holy Bible version of believers being able to perform miracles? If so why be selective, maybe the whole thing should be discredited. If one part is in your opinion not true from your interpretation, why not all of it?

The OP is asking about something biblical. If you cannot understand time, place, and circumstance then the explanation will be lost to you.

Since you do seem a bit more sincere in your question, I'll expand on my answer a bit.

Jesus had just got done chewing them out for not believing (v14). He knew therefore that believing would need more than just words. Remember, Jesus would have been a radical new concept so in order to create new disciples and break from the Roman and Jewish traditions. Jesus needed to have more done since he would no longer be on Earth to continue the movement. Acts is the documentation of that additional action. The miracles served their purpose. No where in Mark does it say that they would continue forever.

I may not be correct but this is what I have come to understand those verses mean. Taking them out of context with the rest of the bible and from the time period can and does raise questions like that of the OP from other theists. From the point of view of atheists however, this is why I question if there was even an acceptance of miracles to begin with.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire

Is this what you mean? I see you reference Acts and make the claim miracles were needed then and you go on to say that you fail to see why they would be still be needed today since there is a record. So you think that since a record exists that is a basis to discredit your Holy Bible version of believers being able to perform miracles? If so why be selective, maybe the whole thing should be discredited. If one part is in your opinion not true from your interpretation, why not all of it?

The OP is asking about something biblical. If you cannot understand time, place, and circumstance then the explanation will be lost to you.

Since you do seem a bit more sincere in your question, I'll expand on my answer a bit.

Jesus had just got done chewing them out for not believing (v14). He knew therefore that believing would need more than just words. Remember, Jesus would have been a radical new concept so in order to create new disciples and break from the Roman and Jewish traditions. Jesus needed to have more done since he would no longer be on Earth to continue the movement. Acts is the documentation of that additional action. The miracles served their purpose. No where in Mark does it say that they would continue forever.

I may not be correct but this is what I have come to understand those verses mean. Taking them out of context with the rest of the bible and from the time period can and does raise questions like that of the OP from other theists. From the point of view of atheists however, this is why I question if there was even an acceptance of miracles to begin with.

So if God's not going to do Biblical style, epic miracles any more. does this make John 14:11-13 a lie?

John 14:11-13 (New International Version)

11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. 12I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

At the risk of being pedantic... I was asking why the God you believe in is not doing something. The God I don't belive in isn't doing anything because he doesn't exist . But you've answered my question to a certain extent. I was asking why we dont' see miracles like those performed by Moses. You're suggesting that the sacrifice of Christ was enough to remove the need for these "salvation miracles" because it is through faith in his sacrifice that we will be saved. Correct?

I guess I could accept that explanation. I can think of a few expansions on that like "so then how does one come to know Jesus" kinda thing but that would be a different thread none the less.

MichaelMcF wrote:

What about other miracles? Pillars of Fire? People talking to God through burning bushes? People being turned into pillars of salt because they dared to look upon God's work? Does Christ's death and ressurection remove the need for all these kinds of acts?

Time and place. I can't say God would do those things again as he may not have to. But as means of bringing into belief for salvation, yes, no longer necessary.

MichaelMcF wrote:

I only ask because I was baptised and raised a roman catholic and it is my understanding that in dying Christ was supposed to accept the cost and burden of man's original sin, thus paying the price that would allow us to enter heaven again. Christ's sacrifice offered us the salvation of heaven if we had faith in him and his ressurection. Am I mistaken? I'm not as knowledgable of the bible as others on here so please correct me if I'm wrong.

The dogma of the Roman Catholic Church as well as other denominations tends to cloud the issue of many many things like the original sin. I don't want to take this thread into a different direction so if you'd rather start up a different thread for that, just let me know where you go.

MichaelMcF wrote:

So why does faith in Jesus, which has granted spiritual salvation, remove the need for any "supernatural" assistance in times of physical hardship?

I'm not sure I understand why there needs to be. And this is the root of the stalemate between atheists and theists: proof. I cannot prove to you God exists because I'm not God. Only he can give you the proof you need. It's a bit Calvinistic but it is how it is stated in the bible.

MichaelMcF wrote:

Are the people of Darfur undeserving of a miracle? How has Christ's death helped them? Why does Christ's death prevent God freeing them from their suffering as he did the Jews in Egypt?

Both opportunities and challenges in daily life are serving God's purpose for each person. Taking the suffering that say the Jews underwent with the Nazis, I could say that it was God's will for it to happen so they could be back in the holy land (United Nations and the creation of Israel). I don't know how Darfur will turn out since that is not part of my purpose as it stands but for those called to go out there and help, well, you got me wondering, is the only way for it to be of God is if God were to micromanage the situation?

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire

So if God's not going to do Biblical style, epic miracles any more. does this make John 14:11-13 a lie?

Jesus did a bit more than the "biblical style" miracles. His words and lifestyle are the focus and example for humanity. You're overgeneralizing this one.

And I never said God won't do any more, there just simply may not be a need. Of course, that's just from my point of view. For all I know, he may be doing one right now and we just don't know about it.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire

The OP is asking about something biblical. If you cannot understand time, place, and circumstance then the explanation will be lost to you.

I am very familiar with the first century regarding customs, history, geography, religions (various not just Christianity) and events.

The OP is very clear in his question.

razorphreak wrote:

Since you do seem a bit more sincere in your question, I'll expand on my answer a bit.

Jesus had just got done chewing them out for not believing (v14). He knew therefore that believing would need more than just words. Remember, Jesus would have been a radical new concept so in order to create new disciples and break from the Roman and Jewish traditions. Jesus needed to have more done since he would no longer be on Earth to continue the movement. Acts is the documentation of that additional action. The miracles served their purpose. No where in Mark does it say that they would continue forever.

Thanks for your comment. Though I take a far different position I am meticulous in my observation of reported events. I have had training on both religion and theology and in scientific observation. As with others I have studied the NT extensively and do not jump to assumptions as you do.

Interesting assumption on your part that a time limit is placed on the believers ability to perform miracles. Why do you think this? Luke 9:1 - Jesus gave the disciples the power to heal. Luke 10:9 - he gave at least healing power to the 70 he sent out. Matthew 18:19-20 Jesus tells them if 2 of them agree it will be done of the Father (sound like healing or miracles). Mark 9:23 - Jesus tells them all things are possible to those of faith. Mark 11:23- faith can move mountains.

No where does it say that after Jesus leaves or the Apostles die (another story JC was supposed to return before all of them died) that the miracles performed by believers would stop. It in effect says in many places exactly the opposite.

razorphreak wrote:

I may not be correct but this is what I have come to understand those verses mean. Taking them out of context with the rest of the bible and from the time period can and does raise questions like that of the OP from other theists. From the point of view of atheists however, this is why I question if there was even an acceptance of miracles to begin with.

I think you are incorrect in your interpretation. The time period has nothing to do with why the miracles by believers seem to not occur. It matters little if I deny the possibility of miracles, Jesus could have been an alien with a healing tri-quarter that he had implanted beneath his arm. If so, it wouldn't be a miracle but technology. The problem is the writing of this period makes claims that miracles could be performed by those that believed in Jesus. This appears to not occur today, possibly it never did. I have little confidence that the NT is an accurate representation of the detailed events it contains. There are many reasons for my distrust of the writing. Regardless, claims can be read and the original intent understood.

My view on miracles if they occur, I have no idea what they are. I put them in the I don't know category and don't start erecting altars to meter maids (See Dead Like Me the series from Showtime).

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.

So if God's not going to do Biblical style, epic miracles any more. does this make John 14:11-13 a lie?

Jesus did a bit more than the "biblical style" miracles. His words and lifestyle are the focus and example for humanity. You're overgeneralizing this one.

And I never said God won't do any more, there just simply may not be a need. Of course, that's just from my point of view. For all I know, he may be doing one right now and we just don't know about it.

Not really. The Bible's writers claimed that Jesus did some amazing things. They also placed the words in Jesus' mouth that those who believed in him would do greater things than he did.

No one's doing stuff like that now and you're saying that miracles of that caliber don't need to happen anymore.

Again, is that scripture a lie?

As far as "God may be doing one right now and we're missing it", I guess that's possible. No one but the Bible authors knew anything about all the things they claimed Jesus did...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Interesting assumption on your part that a time limit is placed on the believers ability to perform miracles. Why do you think this? Luke 9:1 - Jesus gave the disciples the power to heal. Luke 10:9 - he gave at least healing power to the 70 he sent out. Matthew 18:19-20 Jesus tells them if 2 of them agree it will be done of the Father (sound like healing or miracles). Mark 9:23 - Jesus tells them all things are possible to those of faith. Mark 11:23- faith can move mountains.

I didn't say there was a time limit. I simply said it does not have to mean forever. Now the reason I state that said miracles listed in Mark did not have to continue forever is, as with all things listed in the bible, they served their purpose. Just as the atonement was fulfilled and was no longer necessary because of Jesus, as believers came to be, the miracles were no longer needed because of the proof offered by those who witnessed and became record in Acts.

By the way, why did you leave off the "faith the size of a mustard seed?" Yes, all things are possible with faith and this is evident by record of the Acts of the apostles. That was them, this is us. I have faith but I also at times have doubt. If I look at a mountain, I know in my heart I doubt that I can move it, hence I don't. I'm being a bit facetious but I hope you get my meaning.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

No where does it say that after Jesus leaves or the Apostles die...that the miracles performed by believers would stop. It in effect says in many places exactly the opposite.

It does not say that those miracles would stop but it does not say anything to the effect that they would continue forever or for how long. I'm not sure what you are referring to by the opposite.

And again, because neither of us have been witness to anything like this, neither of us can comment that they have indeed not been performed recently.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The time period has nothing to do with why the miracles by believers seem to not occur. ... The problem is the writing of this period makes claims that miracles could be performed by those that believed in Jesus. This appears to not occur today, possibly it never did. I have little confidence that the NT is an accurate representation of the detailed events it contains. There are many reasons for my distrust of the writing. Regardless, claims can be read and the original intent understood.

Many people thought that when Jesus referred to his return, they thought it meant in their lifetime. They also thought that the temple being destroyed was that when it happened in 70AD by the Romans. Neither statement was correct. And yet here you are telling me that the time period has nothing to do with what was written.

As I've stated several times, all I can offer you on the verses in Mark is one of an opinion. I used not only Mark but Acts as part of my theory on both the meaning and intention and even that of the audience of the words from Jesus regarding the miracles from believers as not necessarily being for all time but for that time period only. That is the best answer I can offer on the question. I didn't ask you to agree but to consider. I didn't expect you to accept (since very little ever is accepted by a theist anyway).

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire

Not really. The Bible's writers claimed that Jesus did some amazing things. They also placed the words in Jesus' mouth that those who believed in him would do greater things than he did.

No one's doing stuff like that now and you're saying that miracles of that caliber don't need to happen anymore.

Again, is that scripture a lie?

No. I simply think you are taking to mean if it does not meet everything that Jesus did, it makes that statement a lie. I take it to mean not all things are possible because of doubt but many things that he spoke about are possible. That doesn't make the a lie, just difficult to complete.

If I tell you that I will be able to build an airplane all on my own, you know I can, but without knowledge of the engineering that goes into that process, it is going to be very difficult if not impossible to do within my lifetime, especially if I don't fully believe I can do it. But it did not make what I said a lie.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire

I believe many theists are so caught up in word games and private interpretations that they are not even capable of answering a simple question. razorphreak is simply duplicating the methods of another insane theist ( Paisley ) who constantly redefines words and concepts to suit his purposes.

It is pointless to debate these confused individuals. Direct communication with them is likely to result in answers that actually bring the exchange of ideas to a complete halt.

They will bury you in an avalanche of posts but yet never produce anything but chaos and confusion.....hence the extremely loooooooongduration of these "debates".

Wasn't it Jesus who said ? "Sure, morality is nice but this is business."

I didn't say there was a time limit. I simply said it does not have to mean forever. Now the reason I state that said miracles listed in Mark did not have to continue forever is, as with all things listed in the bible, they served their purpose.

Clearly only your opinion, which I see you said later on.

razorphreak wrote:

By the way, why did you leave off the "faith the size of a mustard seed?" Yes, all things are possible with faith and this is evident by record of the Acts of the apostles. That was them, this is us.

No, I listed ithe faith of the mustard see. I do know the Bible inside out in many versions. What I was taught in the Lutheran Church and later by Jesuits in college is this does still occur today. Your interpretation is yours. Theirs is theirs. Mine is it isn't true. Someone's wrong.

razorphreak wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

No where does it say that after Jesus leaves or the Apostles die...that the miracles performed by believers would stop. It in effect says in many places exactly the opposite.

It does not say that those miracles would stop but it does not say anything to the effect that they would continue forever or for how long. I'm not sure what you are referring to by the opposite.

And again, because neither of us have been witness to anything like this, neither of us can comment that they have indeed not been performed recently.

Now you are starting to sound agnostic or a little skeptical. Maybe we are rubbing off a little on you. As a Christian you are supposed to rely on faith, you don't need to witness a miracle to believe they occur. A skeptic like me needs to watch it with 100 cameras, data loggers, and take 5 years analyzing the test data. Even then if I don't know, I say I don't know and will not attribute it to God.

The Bible verses I quoted should have been clear enough for you to see that it was intended that ALL sincere believers would do these things.

razorphreak wrote:

Many people thought that when Jesus referred to his return, they thought it meant in their lifetime. They also thought that the temple being destroyed was that when it happened in 70AD by the Romans. Neither statement was correct. And yet here you are telling me that the time period has nothing to do with what was written.

So apparently did my namesake Paul which is clear from his writing. The Gospels written after his letters have multiple choices for this. In reality Jesus was talking about the Kingdom of God being at hand, which is not the same as your Christian view. He was a Jew and speaking of the Jewish belief. You need to study Judaism to gain an understanding of what was really going on when he made these statements. This means more than reading a KJV version of the Bible, you need to read the Jewish commentary on the beliefs in the Talmud. Look for specifically the Moshiach (known as the messiah to you but Christians have corrupted its meaning) and how the Kingdom of God was to be instituted.

razorphreak wrote:

As I've stated several times, all I can offer you on the verses in Mark is one of an opinion. I used not only Mark but Acts as part of my theory on both the meaning and intention and even that of the audience of the words from Jesus regarding the miracles from believers as not necessarily being for all time but for that time period only. That is the best answer I can offer on the question. I didn't ask you to agree but to consider. I didn't expect you to accept (since very little ever is accepted by a theist anyway).

I understand it is your opinion and you used Acts as part of your analysis to make that conclusion. Clearly I do not agree with your interpretation. Was " didn't expect you to accept (since very little ever is accepted by a theist anyway)." this a freudian slip? You know I am an atheist.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.

I believe many theists are so caught up in word games and private interpretations that they are not even capable of answering a simple question.

razorphreak is simply duplicating the methods of another insane theist (Paisley) who constantly redefines words and concepts to suit his purposes.

It is pointless to debate these confused individuals. Direct communication with them is likely to result in answers that actually bring the exchange of ideas to a complete halt.

They will bury you in an avalanche of posts but yet never produce anything but chaos and confusion.....hence the extremely loooooooongduration of these "debates".

You know I still don't know who this Paisley is. The fact that you are still reading this thread...makes me kinda...flattered.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire

I do know the Bible inside out in many versions. What I was taught in the Lutheran Church and later by Jesuits in college is this does still occur today. Your interpretation is yours. Theirs is theirs. Mine is it isn't true. Someone's wrong.

You might find all Christian sects have more in common than you think

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Now you are starting to sound agnostic or a little skeptical. Maybe we are rubbing off a little on you. As a Christian you are supposed to rely on faith, you don't need to witness a miracle to believe they occur. A skeptic like me needs to watch it with 100 cameras, data loggers, and take 5 years analyzing the test data. Even then if I don't know, I say I don't know and will not attribute it to God.

It's not that I'm skeptic but rather I don't need them. That's probably the part you didn't catch as well. I don't need to see a miracle to believe.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The Gospels written after his letters have multiple choices for this. In reality Jesus was talking about the Kingdom of God being at hand, which is not the same as your Christian view. He was a Jew and speaking of the Jewish belief. You need to study Judaism to gain an understanding of what was really going on when he made these statements.

As do you it seems but I won't get into that since that is not what this thread is about.

All that studying and you miss the meaning. You sound like Rook.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I understand it is your opinion and you used Acts as part of your analysis to make that conclusion. Clearly I do not agree with your interpretation. Was " didn't expect you to accept (since very little ever is accepted by a theist anyway)." this a freudian slip? You know I am an atheist.

Sorry...I did mean "since very little is ever accepted FROM a theist."

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire

Razor to Prozac, "You know I still don't know who this Paisley is. The fact that you are still reading this thread...makes me kinda...flattered. " ///

Atheists LOVE you more !

Concerned theist Paisley, can be found in the "resent posts" option at left, and you can click on anyones name and then "track" all their posting. He's a loose "Live Wire" looking to connect to GAWED .....

It's not that I'm skeptic but rather I don't need them. That's probably the part you didn't catch as well. I don't need to see a miracle to believe.

OK I get you take it on faith. It was the words you used that misled me. It just sounded like you needed evidence to make a comment. No evidence or witness and therefore commenting was inappropriate. It just sounded like a skeptic.

razorphreak wrote:

All that studying and you miss the meaning. You sound like Rook.

Thanks.

The perspective we bring to the statement in Mark and elsewhere is sufficiently separate that clearly no convincing argument can alter the positions. As you have used the faith card to support your position no progress can result from further discussion. My position remains as it was there never was a time when supernatural miracles occurred based on the ancient writings of doubtful origin. In my opinion the most likely reason for the situation where miracles do not occur as mentioned is simply the ending of Mark 16 is a fabrication by good intending believers needing to bolster the belief. The first century was a time when many purported miracles by healers were claimed. It is such an environment where Jesus belief developed. Therefore it was essential miracles be part of the story. As far as I am concerned end of story.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.

I believe many theists are so caught up in word games and private interpretations that they are not even capable of answering a simple question.

razorphreak is simply duplicating the methods of another insane theist (Paisley) who constantly redefines words and concepts to suit his purposes.

It is pointless to debate these confused individuals. Direct communication with them is likely to result in answers that actually bring the exchange of ideas to a complete halt.

They will bury you in an avalanche of posts but yet never produce anything but chaos and confusion.....hence the extremely loooooooongduration of these "debates".

You know I still don't know who this Paisley is. The fact that you are still reading this thread...makes me kinda...flattered.

Flattered ?

I'm aware of the conventional meaning of the word "flattered" but when dealing with you I'm afraid to make any assumptions. Based upon the past chaos, miscommunication and sheer lack of consensus on this thread your definition could easily be miles from the typical usage of that word.

It doesn't matter if you don't know who Paisley is. I seriously doubt that you would comprehend the significance of the comparison anyway.

Wasn't it Jesus who said ? "Sure, morality is nice but this is business."

Not really. The Bible's writers claimed that Jesus did some amazing things. They also placed the words in Jesus' mouth that those who believed in him would do greater things than he did.

No one's doing stuff like that now and you're saying that miracles of that caliber don't need to happen anymore.

Again, is that scripture a lie?

No. I simply think you are taking to mean if it does not meet everything that Jesus did, it makes that statement a lie. I take it to mean not all things are possible because of doubt but many things that he spoke about are possible. That doesn't make the a lie, just difficult to complete.

If I tell you that I will be able to build an airplane all on my own, you know I can, but without knowledge of the engineering that goes into that process, it is going to be very difficult if not impossible to do within my lifetime, especially if I don't fully believe I can do it. But it did not make what I said a lie.

It's not what Jesus did, but what he said. He's supposedly the son of your God, do his words mean nothing (I'm assuming for the moment the view that he actually said those words - personally I think the character just had the words given to him)?

This might be the time that you, like so many other Christians, go to the writngs of Paul to tell me what Jesus REALLY meant.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

The dogma of the Roman Catholic Church as well as other denominations tends to cloud the issue of many many things like the original sin. I don't want to take this thread into a different direction so if you'd rather start up a different thread for that, just let me know where you go.

Fair enough, I may start up another thread on the subject.

razorphreak wrote:

Time and place. I can't say God would do those things again as he may not have to. But as means of bringing into belief for salvation, yes, no longer necessary.

razorphreak wrote:

I'm not sure I understand why there needs to be. And this is the root of the stalemate between atheists and theists: proof. I cannot prove to you God exists because I'm not God. Only he can give you the proof you need. It's a bit Calvinistic but it is how it is stated in the bible.

razorprheak wrote:

Both opportunities and challenges in daily life are serving God's purpose for each person. Taking the suffering that say the Jews underwent with the Nazis, I could say that it was God's will for it to happen so they could be back in the holy land (United Nations and the creation of Israel). I don't know how Darfur will turn out since that is not part of my purpose as it stands but for those called to go out there and help, well, you got me wondering, is the only way for it to be of God is if God were to micromanage the situation?

I've grouped these together because I think it's better to tie this all together in one coherent form. My take on your answers is this: Before Christ, God would appear and perform 'miracles' to convince men to do his work and carry his name to people that would not hear. The birth, life, and death of Christ gave the world the word of God and the message of faith. This was God's final 'overt' act in giving his message to the world i.e. rather than appearing as a burning bush/pillar of flame and telling people what to do he said "from this day forth look to my son, live your life as his and my work shall be done". Is that a fair summary of the point you're making?

If that is the case then it would certainly leave the door open for God's influence on the world to be much more of a 'micromanaging' role. However I have two objections to this that you could perhaps clarify for me.

1) This floats dangerously close to the "God works in mysterious ways" or "It's all partof God's unknowable plan" type of argument which some have always taken to be the "I don't know but God must do it" argument. It doesn't really answer any questions.

2) Where does that put biblical miracles that were not supposed to convince people to believe or act on God's behalf? Men of true faith are promised the ability to drink poison unharmed (as stated in the OP). That is not a miracle to bring about salvation or faith, it is a promise of God's gift to those of faith.

If you want a better example of my second objection I would point to the fact that Soddom was destroyed for being an affront to the Lord. This was not a miracle to bring "into belief for salvation" it was an act of punishment against those who would defy him. If the biblical miracles designed to bring belief for salvation are no longer needed because of Christ that's fine, but that doesn't account for all miracles. What about those?

M

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss

The perspective we bring to the statement in Mark and elsewhere is sufficiently separate that clearly no convincing argument can alter the positions. As you have used the faith card to support your position no progress can result from further discussion. My position remains as it was there never was a time when supernatural miracles occurred based on the ancient writings of doubtful origin. In my opinion the most likely reason for the situation where miracles do not occur as mentioned is simply the ending of Mark 16 is a fabrication by good intending believers needing to bolster the belief. The first century was a time when many purported miracles by healers were claimed. It is such an environment where Jesus belief developed. Therefore it was essential miracles be part of the story. As far as I am concerned end of story.

Your position is the exact reason why I asked in my OP if anyone believes that such a thing can ever be referred to as a miracle to begin with. It's pointless to argue about more "magical" types if even something far more simple would not be accepted either. But thanks...it's always a pleasure to discuss even the never agreeable points with someone who remains civil.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire

The perspective we bring to the statement in Mark and elsewhere is sufficiently separate that clearly no convincing argument can alter the positions. As you have used the faith card to support your position no progress can result from further discussion. My position remains as it was there never was a time when supernatural miracles occurred based on the ancient writings of doubtful origin. In my opinion the most likely reason for the situation where miracles do not occur as mentioned is simply the ending of Mark 16 is a fabrication by good intending believers needing to bolster the belief. The first century was a time when many purported miracles by healers were claimed. It is such an environment where Jesus belief developed. Therefore it was essential miracles be part of the story. As far as I am concerned end of story.

Your position is the exact reason why I asked in my OP if anyone believes that such a thing can ever be referred to as a miracle to begin with. It's pointless to argue about more "magical" types if even something far more simple would not be accepted either. But thanks...it's always a pleasure to discuss even the never agreeable points with someone who remains civil.

What would you consider a more mundane act of God (according to your definition)?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Your position is the exact reason why I asked in my OP if anyone believes that such a thing can ever be referred to as a miracle to begin with. It's pointless to argue about more "magical" types if even something far more simple would not be accepted either. But thanks...it's always a pleasure to discuss even the never agreeable points with someone who remains civil.

Your welcome. Perhaps in another thread we can discuss issues that are not so hard set.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.

It's not what Jesus did, but what he said. He's supposedly the son of your God, do his words mean nothing? This might be the time that you, like so many other Christians, go to the writngs of Paul to tell me what Jesus REALLY meant.

Actually, I was rather disappointed you didn't appreciate my airplane analogy.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire

I'm aware of the conventional meaning of the word "flattered" but when dealing with you I'm afraid to make any assumptions. Based upon the past chaos, miscommunication and sheer lack of consensus on this thread your definition could easily be miles from the typical usage of that word.

Don't get all twisted over it. It's all peaches and cream...

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire

What would you consider a more mundane act of God (according to your definition)?

Asked and answered.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire

My take on your answers is this: Before Christ, God would appear and perform 'miracles' to convince men to do his work and carry his name to people that would not hear. The birth, life, and death of Christ gave the world the word of God and the message of faith. This was God's final 'overt' act in giving his message to the world i.e. rather than appearing as a burning bush/pillar of flame and telling people what to do he said "from this day forth look to my son, live your life as his and my work shall be done". Is that a fair summary of the point you're making?

There's a lot more detail to that but for the sake of argument, OK.

MichaelMcF wrote:

1) This floats dangerously close to the "God works in mysterious ways" or "It's all partof God's unknowable plan" type of argument which some have always taken to be the "I don't know but God must do it" argument. It doesn't really answer any questions.

It wouldn't and I wouldn't go there on this forum, though I'm sure some will tell you I did. Was not my intention to give that impression which is why I tried to use some examples to explain myself further.

MichaelMcF wrote:

2) Where does that put biblical miracles that were not supposed to convince people to believe or act on God's behalf? Men of true faith are promised the ability to drink poison unharmed (as stated in the OP). That is not a miracle to bring about salvation or faith, it is a promise of God's gift to those of faith.

I'm not sure what you mean by "where does that put" those miracles. Put where? Is there some kind of scale on which a miracle should be judged off?

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire

I'm not sure what you mean by "where does that put" those miracles. Put where? Is there some kind of scale on which a miracle should be judged off?

Sorry, bad phrasing on my part. What I mean to say, is simply this: If Christ's existence and sacrifice removed the need for God to perform miracles of salvation - miracles which would strengthen belief in him - why don't we see miracles that aren't supposed to strengthen belief? Why aren't people of genuine faith able to drink poison? Why does God only speak to people that already believe in him in mysterious ways? Why doesn't he speak to the faithful as a burning bush? I don't understand why the life of Christ would remove the need for these kinds of acts.

M

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss